Summary
Arrears of disability pension, including broad banding, recognised by Union of India v. Ram Avtar (10.12.2014) and by the Union's own policy decisions, cannot be restricted to three years before the original application. The right to approach the Tribunal accrued only with that judgment, the Union had by its order of 18.04.2016 accepted payment from the specified cut-off dates, and curtailing accrued arrears would offend Article 300A.
Issues
- Whether arrears of disability pension (including broad banding) can be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the original applications before the Armed Forces Tribunal, by invoking limitation, delay or laches.
Provisions considered
- Section 22(1)(c), Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007The Union's reliance on the limitation bar failed because the ex-servicemen's right to approach the Tribunal accrued only on 10.12.2014, when Ram Avtar was decided; the bar was held to have no application to their claims. (¶¶ 6, 22)
- Limitation Act, 1963 (generally), Limitation Act, 1963The plea that arrears claims were time-barred was rejected because the broad-banding issue attained finality only on 10.12.2014 and the Union thereafter acknowledged that arrears were to flow from 01.01.1996. (¶¶ 6, 21)
- Article 300A, Constitution of IndiaPension being a vested right in the nature of property, depriving ex-servicemen of arrears that had become due under judicial determination and the Union's own policy would infringe Article 300A. (¶¶ 15, 19)
- Para 7.2, Instructions dated 31.01.2001 of the Ministry of Defence (implementation of Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations)Prescribes broad banding of the assessed percentage of disability (less than 50 reckoned as 50, 50-75 as 75, 75-100 as 100) for invalidated personnel; its denial to personnel retiring with disability was struck down by the Tribunal and that view was affirmed in Ram Avtar. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13)
Held
- Until Ram Avtar was decided on 10.12.2014, the right of ex-servicemen retiring with disability to broad banding remained unsettled; that judgment removed the impediment to exercising the right and was a judgment in rem, so the Union ought to have extended its benefit to all eligible ex-servicemen without requiring them to approach the Tribunal. (¶¶ 14, 16)
- Pension is not a bounty but deferred compensation that matures into a vested right in the nature of property; disability pension in particular recognises impairment suffered in service and cannot be withheld or reduced except by authority of law. (¶ 15)
- Having by conscious policy decisions, including the order dated 18.04.2016 issued with financial concurrence, decided that arrears were payable from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, the Union cannot later confine arrears to three years before the claim; doing so would acknowledge the right in principle while denying its substance and would infringe Article 300A. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Following a consistent line of decisions, disability pension once found due must be paid from the date it became due and cannot be curtailed to three years preceding the original application. (¶ 20)
- The claims were not barred by limitation, Section 22(1)(c) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act or delay and laches. Tarsem Singh did not assist the Union because Ram Avtar, a later three-Judge Bench decision in rem, changed the position, and because the ex-servicemen were already receiving disability pension and sought only its re-computation. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Appeals by the Union of India dismissed. Appeals by the ex-servicemen allowed; Tribunal orders restricting arrears to three years set aside; appellants held entitled to disability pension including broad banding from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be, with interest at 6% per annum. No costs.